MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141069797 · doi:10.14447/jnmes.v24i1.a09

Optimization of Turning Parameters of Cryogenic Soaked AZ91 Magnesium Alloy using TOPSIS coupled Taguchi Technique

2021· article· en· W3141069797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Gunasekaran, Pradeep G. Kumar, R. Thanigaivelan, Ramanathan Arunachalam, Venkatkumar Shanmugam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKarunya University
KeywordsTaguchi methodsTOPSISMagnesium alloyMagnesiumMaterials scienceMachiningSurface roughnessMetallurgyMechanical engineeringAlloyOrthogonal arrayComposite materialMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnesium alloys is a lightweight material establishing scope in various fields such as aerospace and automobile. Moreover, magnesium alloys are also considered as a hydrogen storage materials. In order to understand the machining behaviour of magnesium alloy a detail research is planned. In this research the turning experiments are conducted on AZ91 magnesium alloy using the L9 orthogonal array (OA) experimental design. Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) coupled with Taguchi and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) methods are used to analysis the experiments. The influence of cryogenic soaking duration, feed, speed and depth of cut on cutting temperature, surface roughness and cutting force were studied. Based on the TOPSIS analysis the optimal combination for the better response is cryogenic soaking time of 30 min, speed of 500 rpm, feed of 40 mm/min and depth of cut of 0.3mm. As per F value the depth of cut shows the 0.4822 and next best factors are cutting speed and feed rate. The chip analysis reveals that the cryogenic soaking duration level of 60 min is found to reduce the self-ignited chips.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical SystemsSame topicAluminum Alloy Microstructure PropertiesFrench-language works237,207